busted —

His latest threats violated conditions of his parole.

A campaign of harassment against scientists that lasted decades came to an end last year. Dennis Markuze, who went by the nickname Mabus, had issues with atheism, and he targeted its proponents with unbalanced rants and a variety of threats. Over the years, however, he gradually lost focus and decided that anyone promoting science was worthy of harassment. That led him to target a variety of science writers and expand his campaign to blog comments and social media.

That lack of focus proved to be his undoing, as a writer from Markuze's home town of Montreal managed to get him to target his invective at the local police. Markuze was brought in for a psychiatric evaluation and was eventually given a suspended sentence. Part of the conditions of his parole were that he stay off social networks.

Fortunately, the Montreal Police also reached that conclusion. Markuze appeared just as bad at covering his tracks as he had been earlier, so the police were able to announce that Markuze has been taken into custody for parole violations.

Promoted Comments

Some scientists believe in God. Some don't.But all of them believe in physics.

Science is not a matter of belief.

This. When other members of my religion ask me if I "believe" in evolution, all I can think is, No, I *believe* in God, but I accept the consensus on evolutionary biology (And the Big Bang, and climate change, and ...)

The distinction is very important: You can prove a scientific theory wrong by doing reproducible, verifiable research and publishing it in a peer reviewed journal with standing in the wider scientific community. That is exactly what science is, at its core, an iterative process. Whereas my faith is not logical or rational, and isn't really modifiable by outside evidence, even if such a thing were possible, which is isn't. Faith is, by definition, the opposite of science. That does not mean they are mutually exclusive, but confusing them is one of the core causes of the larger social conflict between science and religion.

Mentally ill people on the internet... It's an interesting topic, but not a comfortable one.

Probably most of us have insulted someone mentally ill at some point, which we never would've done before internet commenting.

I now try to recognize schizophrenics and rein in the ascerbic side of my nature. If you follow the links to their personal blogs, there are a lot of heartbreaking stories -- people developing schizophrenia and not realizing what is happening to them.

Unfortunately the internet exacerbates their symptoms. Google "targeted individual" or "gang stalking". It is doing this guy a kindness to keep him off the net.

I'm not trying to defend this man or say there aren't people stupid enough to immediately violate parole, but are we sure it was him? It does sound like he made a lot of enemies that probably could easily frame him for parole violations. But if he doesn't claim to be framed, I'm more than willing to accept he did do this himself. After all, there are people that stupid.

I'm not trying to defend this man or say there aren't people stupid enough to immediately violate parole, but are we sure it was him? It does sound like he made a lot of enemies that probably could easily frame him for parole violations. But if he doesn't claim to be framed, I'm more than willing to accept he did do this himself. After all, there are people that stupid.

Look at the Petraeus affair... they tracked down Broadwell even though she was posting anonymously using multiple throwaway accounts in internet cafes.

Some scientists believe in God. Some don't.But all of them believe in physics.

Science is not a matter of belief.

This. When other members of my religion ask me if I "believe" in evolution, all I can think is, No, I *believe* in God, but I accept the consensus on evolutionary biology (And the Big Bang, and climate change, and ...)

The distinction is very important: You can prove a scientific theory wrong by doing reproducible, verifiable research and publishing it in a peer reviewed journal with standing in the wider scientific community. That is exactly what science is, at its core, an iterative process. Whereas my faith is not logical or rational, and isn't really modifiable by outside evidence, even if such a thing were possible, which is isn't. Faith is, by definition, the opposite of science. That does not mean they are mutually exclusive, but confusing them is one of the core causes of the larger social conflict between science and religion.

As for this Mabus fellow, I hope there is some sort of medical support available that can help him out, but I'm guessing that's unlikely.

Don't be too pessimistic. Both paranoia and schizophrenia (not clear which he is suffering from) are sometimes amenable to medication, and the meds get better every decade.

The real problem is that sufferers frequently don't believe they are sick and believe everyone else is just like them, only maybe hiding it better. It's not at all clear what the best thing to do in this case is. One can just tie people down and force meds into them, but there are obvious reasons why we don't want to go there. But not going there may mean the sufferer throws their life away. All very sad.

Deinstitutionalization is one of the greatest policy failures of the 20th century. Destructive for everyone involved, and it hasn't even saved money, just shifted expenses around. Policemen don't become policemen to be psychiatric nurses, and they aren't really trained as such, but they are forced into the job anyways because they're the last resort. And the mentally ill aren't better off living in cardboard boxes or prison cells instead of asylums. It's just stupid false economy all around.

You know these institutions treated people as less than animals, there were cases where inmates literally had roaches living in their ears. My family's supported the independent employment of a man who was freed from this asylum. He paid for all of his own supports and care through his own job - which he would never have gotten if he had lived in that asylum. To this day, he will randomly grin and exclaim, "<Asylum name> is closed!". (I'm not going to breach his confidentiality by posting which he was in, suffice it to say he was mistreated).

If you want to fix this, go volunteer or get a weekend job. Check www.211.org in your area and see if there are any non-profits providing services.

I originally came in to this thread to say that I'm a social libertarian Christian that prefers to be friends with atheists and agnostics because I believe in the basic goodness and desire to achieve in every human being. I am a person who's been accused of being a technocrat and a Marxist because I am also a hard line collectivist.

There's been a lot of progress, especially in medications, but the most powerful drugs in the world are worthless if they aren't taken. And the course of many mental illnesses is that the person goes through terrifying episodes, physically and psychically painful, and often wind up committing suicide from depression. To my mind, their disease is basically torturing them to death.

Been there done that. I didn't kill myself because of my belief that there would eventually be a treatment for my condition. However I would not have been able to continue for another decade. Thank God I was finally given medications to resolve most of my issues and thank God for scientists and Doctors that make such cures practical.

Being institutionalised would have made my condition worse and I would have given up and died.

There might be a minority of mentally ill who benefit from being institutionalised but the majority would not.

I would like to see sites like Ars sound the alarm on other devastating campaigns of harassment, ones targeting Conservative individuals like this disgusting swatting phenomenon.

Ars is a technical and science site. It wouldn't make much sense for them to cover harassment unrelated to science or technology. If I wanted to know about harassment against conservatives, liberals, dog owners or knitters, I'd expect to find them on more sites more apropos to the topics involved.

My condolences on the harassment, however. No one should have to endure vitriolic attacks. I'd prefer to assume that such harassment reflects on the individual harassers' failings than to the communities of which they claim to be a part.

If you don't like atheism, then don't practice it. If you really hate it, then don't associate with those who do practice it.

Substitute whatever belief system that you want for atheism in that paragraph and rinse and repeat. Choice and tolerance are two of the keystones of a free and civil society.

The funny thing is that everyone is an atheist in some way. Just ask a Christian if he believes in Allah or Thor, or if a Jew believes in Vishnu. If you only believe in one of the thousands of Gods that others believe in, then you're more atheist than not.

I thought comments today discussing religion and gender were pushing things, but that one holds nothing back.

And while I certainly don't condone what Peter wrote those twelve years ago, there were others in that thread who were absolutely relentless in their pious and pseudo-scientific sanctimony. Their bullshit simply could not go unanswered.

I'm really not seeing how you got from that post to your damning comment on the first page of this thread.

It's not the only time, just the only link I could find without hours of searching. And that isn't to say I think Peter is psychotic or actually planned on doing anything.

It's to say I find it ironic that a site promoting someone who's made similar statements would cheer using those statements to incarcerate someone, even if that person is mentally ill.

Which is of course my point. I don't expect the people who downvoted me to change their mind, but the truth is the truth. I didn't make it up.

Except that's not what happened; the person (Mabus) made threats to enough people that the police investigated him and he was declared mentally ill to reduce his sentence.

If you wish to report PeterB, you will probably have to further more than that single link/thread to make the situation analogous. That's your 'burden of proof', since that's what it it takes to actually get PeterB taken by the police.

I thought comments today discussing religion and gender were pushing things, but that one holds nothing back.

And while I certainly don't condone what Peter wrote those twelve years ago, there were others in that thread who were absolutely relentless in their pious and pseudo-scientific sanctimony. Their bullshit simply could not go unanswered.

From what I gathered from a cursory scan, that PWP guy was practically going out of his way to be offensive. While a rant like Peter's is kinda over-the-top, 12 years Ars was a lot smaller, and the fact that a staff member did that wouldn't have been as odd.

Also, it was 12 years ago, people change a lot in that amount of time. You can have a kid, then send that kid to school and have him/her ask questions that you find difficult to answer, in that amount of time. It isn't fair to hold that up as something relevant now. How would you (Vampyre) like it if I judged you based on your behaviour as a teenager? Or a college student? (I have no idea how old you are, maybe I should be judging you based on your performance as a fetus?). Would it be fair to declare you an alcoholic because you drank a lot a decade ago? Would it be fair to decide that you are a fundamentally deranged person because you were mean to somebody, over a decade ago?

Have some perspective man, 12 years ago, the PS2 was released. 12 years ago Pope John Paul II apologised for the wrongdoings of the Catholic Church. 12 years ago only 3% of US adults had access to broadband. 12 years ago, the Pentium 4 was just released. 12 years is a long time, and is certainly has no bearing on Ars or Peter today. If you can find a link that shows something similar from say, less than 3 years ago, I'm all for it.

I'm really not seeing how you got from that post to your damning comment on the first page of this thread.

It's not the only time, just the only link I could find without hours of searching. And that isn't to say I think Peter is psychotic or actually planned on doing anything.

It's to say I find it ironic that a site promoting someone who's made similar statements would cheer using those statements to incarcerate someone, even if that person is mentally ill.

Which is of course my point. I don't expect the people who downvoted me to change their mind, but the truth is the truth. I didn't make it up.

For my part, I downvoted you because your citation clearly didn't support your accusation. PeterB has said some inflammatory things in the past, but nothing like what you claimed, so far as I'm aware. If you can't be bothered to find a single example, why should anyone believe you?

I'm not trying to defend this man or say there aren't people stupid enough to immediately violate parole, but are we sure it was him? It does sound like he made a lot of enemies that probably could easily frame him for parole violations. But if he doesn't claim to be framed, I'm more than willing to accept he did do this himself. After all, there are people that stupid.

When he first began posting again after his arrest the pattern was familiar and recognizable and he attempted to cover his tracks by adding "Not Dennis Markuze - but a FAN!" in a few different variations at the end of the posts.

Then he made the big mistake of logging into a few forum accounts that were known to belong to him to post new stuff.

When the Ars team put in the comment voting system, I remember they claimed that they were concerned about protecting sincere minority voices. However, they didn't have any examples of them being silenced by the system. Well, here's one from this thread:

Quote:

I agree that Dennis's case is truly exceptional, due to the extreme tenacity of his inflammatory messages (20 years)? I also sympathize with anyone victim of his harassment.

However, I do agree that in spite of how vile he is, he attracts so much attention because of his beliefs.

I would like to see sites like Ars sound the alarm on other devastating campaigns of harassment, ones targeting Conservative individuals like this disgusting swatting phenomenom.

I know that I've had insults and threats hurled at me countless times for expressing my unabashedly social conservative opinions.

Lastly, although he is clearly harrassing innocents and violating his parole, I still have some problem with atheist and scientific circles banding together, and acting as judge, jury, and executionner. At least, when I read the drama preceding his arrest, although he is clearly very malicious, something made me ill at ease.

/Also, it provided information about the "conservative SWAT-ing" that I was unaware of. This seems like something Ars would cover, as it involves bloggers and computer crime. Was this covered here and I missed it?

//LOL. The fact I'm being downvoted for pointing this out is extremely ironic.

One of my regrets about the anti-science posters is how they managed to get the science writers off topic. John Timmer use to write about science, now he writes about science and the antics of anti-science people.

When the Ars team put in the comment voting system, I remember they claimed that they were concerned about protecting sincere minority voices. However, they didn't have any examples of them being silenced by the system. Well, here's one from this thread:

Quote:

I agree that Dennis's case is truly exceptional, due to the extreme tenacity of his inflammatory messages (20 years)? I also sympathize with anyone victim of his harassment.

However, I do agree that in spite of how vile he is, he attracts so much attention because of his beliefs.

I would like to see sites like Ars sound the alarm on other devastating campaigns of harassment, ones targeting Conservative individuals like this disgusting swatting phenomenom.

I know that I've had insults and threats hurled at me countless times for expressing my unabashedly social conservative opinions.

Lastly, although he is clearly harrassing innocents and violating his parole, I still have some problem with atheist and scientific circles banding together, and acting as judge, jury, and executionner. At least, when I read the drama preceding his arrest, although he is clearly very malicious, something made me ill at ease.

/Also, it provided information about the "conservative SWAT-ing" that I was unaware of. This seems like something Ars would cover, as it involves bloggers and computer crime. Was this covered here and I missed it?

Most of that post was opinion and speculation, and while I don't agree with it I'm content to leave it alone. As you said, non-antagonistic minority view.

Then there's the last paragraph. Athiests and science writers who were the targets of harassment are apparently "acting as judge, jury, and executionner [sic]" because they reported death threats to the police. That's not a minority view. It's offensive and stupid.

Some scientists believe in God. Some don't.But all of them believe in physics.

Science is not a matter of belief.

This. When other members of my religion ask me if I "believe" in evolution, all I can think is, No, I *believe* in God, but I accept the consensus on evolutionary biology (And the Big Bang, and climate change, and ...)

The distinction is very important: You can prove a scientific theory wrong by doing reproducible, verifiable research and publishing it in a peer reviewed journal with standing in the wider scientific community. That is exactly what science is, at its core, an iterative process. Whereas my faith is not logical or rational, and isn't really modifiable by outside evidence, even if such a thing were possible, which is isn't. Faith is, by definition, the opposite of science. That does not mean they are mutually exclusive, but confusing them is one of the core causes of the larger social conflict between science and religion.

And yet the underpinnings of science itself require beliefs in certain things. Belief that we can trust perceptions, whether as an individual or as a group. Belief that the tenants of science are true.

Don't get me wrong, I think the beliefs and foundations of science are valid and true as far as they go. But you cannot prove the truth of science without resorting to some kind of trust of senses or logic - and that's where belief comes in.

The thing is that it's not a blind belief, it's a belief that's open to revision as soon as good evidence necessitating it becomes available. When gravity stops working, we can contemplate the implications for our scientific worldview just before we fly out of what used to be our Galaxy.

Some scientists believe in God. Some don't.But all of them believe in physics.

Science is not a matter of belief.

This. When other members of my religion ask me if I "believe" in evolution, all I can think is, No, I *believe* in God, but I accept the consensus on evolutionary biology (And the Big Bang, and climate change, and ...)

The distinction is very important: You can prove a scientific theory wrong by doing reproducible, verifiable research and publishing it in a peer reviewed journal with standing in the wider scientific community. That is exactly what science is, at its core, an iterative process. Whereas my faith is not logical or rational, and isn't really modifiable by outside evidence, even if such a thing were possible, which is isn't. Faith is, by definition, the opposite of science. That does not mean they are mutually exclusive, but confusing them is one of the core causes of the larger social conflict between science and religion.

And yet the underpinnings of science itself require beliefs in certain things. Belief that we can trust perceptions, whether as an individual or as a group. Belief that the tenants of science are true.

Quit being disingenuous. Science only requires belief because it's a shown to be repeatable, reliable, and consistent. In other words, the belief that 2x6 = 12 because you trust that 2+2+2+2+2+2 and 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1 haven't changed in the last thousand years such that when you use it again in 10 minutes you don't have to repeat your work.

If you needed to, however, you certainly could.

Quote:

Don't get me wrong, I think the beliefs and foundations of science are valid and true as far as they go. But you cannot prove the truth of science without resorting to some kind of trust of senses or logic - and that's where belief comes in.

Of course, duh, but that's an empty statement. That same reasoning says you cannot prove that God isn't a hallucination because your selfsame senses come into play.

Deinstitutionalization is one of the greatest policy failures of the 20th century. Destructive for everyone involved, and it hasn't even saved money, just shifted expenses around. Policemen don't become policemen to be psychiatric nurses, and they aren't really trained as such, but they are forced into the job anyways because they're the last resort. And the mentally ill aren't better off living in cardboard boxes or prison cells instead of asylums. It's just stupid false economy all around.

you've obviously not read "one flew over the cuckoo's nest."

A) Nurse Ratched is a fictional character.B) She had the guy lobotomized, she didn't have him tasered and beaten to death, something you hear about in the news all too often.

Mental institutions had their many flaws, but kicking people out into the street with a handful of pills just made things worse.

for you, or for them? it always felt a bit too much like sweeping the problem under the rug. institutes are like prisons: some are tidy and run properly, others are corrupt and abusive. furthermore, those closer to sanity tend to resent being imprisoned....

When the Ars team put in the comment voting system, I remember they claimed that they were concerned about protecting sincere minority voices. However, they didn't have any examples of them being silenced by the system. Well, here's one from this thread:

Quote:

I agree that Dennis's case is truly exceptional, due to the extreme tenacity of his inflammatory messages (20 years)? I also sympathize with anyone victim of his harassment.

However, I do agree that in spite of how vile he is, he attracts so much attention because of his beliefs.

I would like to see sites like Ars sound the alarm on other devastating campaigns of harassment, ones targeting Conservative individuals like this disgusting swatting phenomenom.

I know that I've had insults and threats hurled at me countless times for expressing my unabashedly social conservative opinions.

Lastly, although he is clearly harrassing innocents and violating his parole, I still have some problem with atheist and scientific circles banding together, and acting as judge, jury, and executionner. At least, when I read the drama preceding his arrest, although he is clearly very malicious, something made me ill at ease.

/Also, it provided information about the "conservative SWAT-ing" that I was unaware of. This seems like something Ars would cover, as it involves bloggers and computer crime. Was this covered here and I missed it?

Looked more like the OP was playing the victim card (and i dont see how swatting is a computer crime).To the OP: it's hard even to define what Markuze's beliefs are, other than that he had a mad-on about skeptics, particularly faith skeptics, and usually incoherent in addition to being a tenacious cyberstalker.

And yet the underpinnings of science itself require beliefs in certain things. Belief that we can trust perceptions, whether as an individual or as a group. Belief that the tenants of science are true.

Don't get me wrong, I think the beliefs and foundations of science are valid and true as far as they go. But you cannot prove the truth of science without resorting to some kind of trust of senses or logic - and that's where belief comes in.

That's why the scientific method includes reproducibility & control methods aka doing the same shit leads to the same results taking into account known parameters (with enumerated accuracy/probability).

I "believe" in scientific theories (like evolution) the same way that I "believe" in my car and my computer. They're useful, they do what they need to do, they're built on ideas that have been around longer than I have, and they'll eventually be replaced by newer models that build on the old ones.

Some scientists believe in God. Some don't.But all of them believe in physics.

Science is not a matter of belief.

This. When other members of my religion ask me if I "believe" in evolution, all I can think is, No, I *believe* in God, but I accept the consensus on evolutionary biology (And the Big Bang, and climate change, and ...)

The distinction is very important: You can prove a scientific theory wrong by doing reproducible, verifiable research and publishing it in a peer reviewed journal with standing in the wider scientific community. That is exactly what science is, at its core, an iterative process. Whereas my faith is not logical or rational, and isn't really modifiable by outside evidence, even if such a thing were possible, which is isn't. Faith is, by definition, the opposite of science. That does not mean they are mutually exclusive, but confusing them is one of the core causes of the larger social conflict between science and religion.

And yet the underpinnings of science itself require beliefs in certain things. Belief that we can trust perceptions, whether as an individual or as a group. Belief that the tenants of science are true.

Don't get me wrong, I think the beliefs and foundations of science are valid and true as far as they go. But you cannot prove the truth of science without resorting to some kind of trust of senses or logic - and that's where belief comes in.

That's at least somewhat fair: Every system has its axioms... Science, math, even a religion. But I think you know what I meant.

Canada, like the US and all other Western countries, got rid of their long-term psychiatric facilities (aka, "nut houses" or "insane asylums") about 30 or so years ago. The bean counters, with their short-term mindset, figured they were too expensive to keep up.

Wrong. My parents are volunteers at such a facility. They've been visiting the same person (who got placed there the moment he turned 18) roughly once a week for the last 20 years.This is a place for non violent psychiatric patients that should never be on the streets seeing that they can't care for themselves.And a friend works in a facility that is the same with the exception that it is more prison like due to it housing violent psychiatric patients.